L E T T E E

--|*^t|al)itaitte of ^nirob^r ani ^art| ^iiirater.

N . W . H A Z E N

BOSTON:

FETRIDGE AND COMPANY,

100 Washington Street.
1856.

*Oy

Qass , '

Book ■ L 4- H -? I

/

f

/^tzr^>

LETTER

|n|itMtart^ of ^liiiobcr aiii iort| ^Inkbcr,

N. W. IIAZEN,

^-^i z;;^

BOSTON:
FETKIDGE AND COMPAxXY,

100 Wasiii\(;tox Stkkkt.
1S5G.

F^-'

c A 51 n R I D G r: :

ALLEN A N U F A U N 11 A M , V 15 INTERS.

LETTER.

Fellow-Citizens : —

I trust that you will find in this letter sufficient
apology for its appearance. It is a defence, which if
it could not be made, I should be unworthy the kind-
ness for which I am so much indebted to so many of
you. It is demanded by justice to you, and to my
friends, wherever they may be. It is strange indeed
that such an occasion for appealing to you should have
arisen. It is very painful to me to be compelled for
such purposes to obtrude any matters personal to me
on 3'Our notice. So far as may be in my power, the
subject shall now be disposed of in such a manner that
it shall never a2;ain come into discussion.

It is now more than ten years since it was charged
upon me that I had bought land for myself, after I had
been engaged by the projectors of the Essex Company
to purchase the same land for them. The accusation
was thus vague and indefinite. I owned but two par-
cels to which it could applj', and as it was used to com-
pel me to sell what may be known as the Shawsheen

(3)

House estate, it was assumed that was the property in
relation to w^hich the alleged offence had been com-
mitted.

Those of you who are of sufficient age will remem-
ber that in the winter of 1844-45 several persons
were engaged in buying the lands, now embraced in
the limits of Lawrence, and that the name of Samuel
Lawa-ence was associated with this business. He and
John Nesmith were apparently its principals. It was
however the connection of Mr. Lawrence with it, that
mainly gave countenance and plausibility to the enter-
prise said to be projected. He was understood to be
almost daily in the prosecution of its objects ; he was
one of the four corporators named in the charter of
the Essex Company : the city built on the land then
obtained by him and his associates has received his
family name. I do not know that he is, or ever has
been, an officer or agent of this corporation ; but such
was his share in its inception and formation, and such
has been his intimacy and connection with those who
have had the conduct of its affairs, that no one will
doubt that he is able to state truly its acts, and that
his conduct, in relation to the same subjects, may be
taken to represent justly its policy and motives.

The project of "a new city" commenced under such
auspices, attracted the attention of the whole country.
The story of the lawyer who had been guilty of a
breach of trust towards its distinguished j)i'oJ6ctors,
found its way into every part of the community. I

knew much less of this at the time than I have since
discovered. Within-' the past year I have more than
once been painfull}^ surprised to find there were some
whom my vindication had not reached. And what is
yet worse, that the iinj)utation is still used to prejudice
my character and interests.

It is now proposed to state to you a true and fidl
account of my share in those transactions, and of the
course which then and since that time has been pur-
sued towards me by some of those who were then, or
have since become, interested in them.

The deed of Mr. Samuel Poor, of the Shawsheen
House estate, is dated December 14, 1844, and was
acknowledged December 20 of the same month. I
think that the date of the deed is the date of the con-
tract of sale. The cause of the difference in these
dates will hereafter appear. Within a few days after
this deed had been taken, Mr. Saunders, the well-known
agent and associate of the projectors, did come to en-
gage me to aid in the purchase of lands, saying, that
he v*\is authorized by Lawrence and Nesmith to jirom-
ise me, that if I would take hold with them, I should
come in as an original purchaser; that when the pur-
chases should be completed, the proposed company
incorporated and organized, and the lands conveyed to
it, I should share in the bonus that was expected to be
paid to those who had secured the lands. Nothing was
said of my giving up any land or rights then in my
possession or control. Under this engagement I labored

6

with diligence and effect, securing the title to lands
vital to the enterprise, and which I think could not
have been otherwise obtained on reasonable terms.
The fiict that I was so employed so near to the time
when I bought land within the limits of the territory
sought to be purchased by my em]3loyers, gave plausi-
bility to the slander that was put in circulation.

At the same time with the origin of this accusation,
and coming apparently from the same quarters where
that had arisen, it was asserted that imless my land
could be obtained, "the new city" would be commenced
on the opposite bank of the river. The effect of this
would be to fix the population and business far as pos-
sible from my premises. You also had an interest in
the threatened movement, for it would carry them
away from you, and place the river and the toll-bridge
between you and that portion of the territory soon to
be thickly inhabited. It would subject you to personal
disadvantages, and withhold from you and your estates
material benefits. If it could be shown that it was
one of your own townsmen, who had frought this
mischief upon you by insisting to retain proj^erty
which he had wrongfully obtained, he would be justly
odious and justly condemned.

Three persons, each possessing an uncommon capacity
for bluster, and too well known to you to require a
more special designation, passed through much of our
town, invading your houses and shops, entering the
public places, and filling your ears with the most ^

extravagant statements of the immense losses which
my conduct was about to bring upon the town. It is
matter of great pride and satisfaction to me that the
effect these efforts produced on jou was so small.

In the midst of all this, about June 25, 1845, I was
notified by one of these three persons to meet Mr.
Storrow, then and now treasurer and agent of the
Essex Compan}^, at the Eagle Hotel, which as you
know is little more than across the street from my
office, on the subject of my land. I supposed at the
time, that the meeting was appointed at the tavern to
give it publicity and invest it w^ith a certain air of
parade. On meeting Mr. Storrow at the time and
place notified, he at once, without prelude, gave me
formal notice that unless the Essex Company obtained
my land the city would be commenced on the northern
bank of the river. Instead of adopting this threat,
made under the circumstances, as a proper basis of
negotiation for a contract of sale, I availed myself of
the opportunity to give him notice that if such was the
disposition of the Essex Company I should not allow
them to flow out the mill on the land late of Mr.
Barnard. Mr. Storrow in no way intimated that I had
obtained the land unfairly. Such was the part per-
formed by Mr. Storrow in this stage of this business.

The clamor which had been attempted to be raised
coming more to my knowledge, and the slander of my
treachery having found its way into the newspapers, I
caused the following to be published : —

TO THE PUBLIC.

The necessity which compels this appeal is deeply re-
sretted; but there seems to be no alternative left between
it and the success of unwearied efforts to injure the charac-
ter of the subscriber. These attempts have their origin and
stimulus in the declarations and pretences of the Essex
Company.

That corporation has purchased about 2,000 acres of land,
situated in about equal portions on both banks of the Merri-
mac, in the towns of Andover and Methuen. They seek in
addition, it is admitted for the purpose of speculation only,
about 30 acres of land lying in Andover, in which land the
subscriber has an interest.

It has been affirmed, on behalf of the company, that it has
been their wish and desire to locate the city which they pro-
pose to found, upon the southern bank in Andover, but that
the ownership of this parcel of land has decided them to
erect it upon the northern bank.

In connection with these pretences and declarations, it has
been asserted that at the time when the conveyance under
which it is now held was made, the subscriber had been re-
tained to aid in the purchase of these very lands, including
that in question. This assertion is utterly false. This par-
cel of land had been subject to a mortgage to its present
proprietors about thirteen years ; an entry had been made to
foreclose the mortgage, which then embraced this and one
other parcel of land.

In December last a proposal was made to the mortgagor
by me to release to him one piece of the land, and for him to
convey the equity of redemption of the other. This I did to
settle a mortgage of long standing, and to secure an interest

ill property which was then increasing in value. The pro-
posal, by my consent, was communicated to Mr. Saunders,
who was employed in making the purchases, together with
an offer to sell to him the same parcel which was to be con-
veyed to me under my proposal.

After some days' deliberation, in which time, as I have
been informed, he consulted his associates, Messrs. Lawrence
and Nesmiih, Mr. Saunders declined to buy it on the terms
proposed. After the offer of it had been thus rejected, the
deed under which it is now held was executed. Immediately
after this, and, as there is evidence tending very strongly to
prove, in consequence of this transaction, Mr. Saunders re-
quested me to aid in the purchase of land. It is due to him
to say that I have never heard that he has stated that there
was any thing unfair or improper on my part in obtaining
this conveyance ; on the contrary, I have heard that he has
very recently declared that there was not, — yet if the asser-
tion was true, he alone could make it, for by him alone I was
engaged.

I saw none of the associates for the purchase of these
lands except Mr. Saunders, in relation to that business, and
was not introduced to Messrs. Lawrence and Nesmith until
I had ceased to act in their behalf.

I have sought in vain for a responsible author of this base
slander, obviously invented and repeated for the doubly base
purpose of impairing at once the rights of property and of
reputation.

I have heard that in one instance a gentleman of Boston,
represented to be highly respectable, and affirming himself to
be a member of the corporation, has made the statement.
But he, as well as the ignorant and interested, the parasites
and dependants of the company, who have made or repeated

2.

10

the falsehood, have chosen their audience so judiciously that
their names, with those of the midnight incendiaries of the
season, remain unknown, safe in concealment from the retri-
bution of the law. Until they can be discovered, those who
suffer from their depredations should receive the sympathy
and support of all who respect the rights of property, repu-
tation, and person, which form the basis of society.

N. W. Hazen.
Andover, August 5, 1845.

The above was printed in the Boston Post, and I
think was inserted also in the Courier, Advertiser, and
Times of this city; in the Lowell Journal, and in the
Salem and Plaverhill newspapers. It was contained in
the Post of August 6, 1845. and was printed very con-
spicuously in the paj)er of that date. It could hardly
escape the notice of any reader. I have not copies of
the other papers in which the statement appeared, with
my signature, at or about the same date. It may be
safely affirmed that the publication was far greater,
than is ordinarily required in legal proceedings to raise
the presumption of notice. It is quite certain that the
persons, or some of them who then had the conduct of
the affiiirs of the Essex Company had knowledge of
the contents of this j^ublic statement from reading it in
some of the journals where it was printed.

Yet it is not known to me that any reply was ever
made. I was left therefore to suppose, and did sup-
pose, that the accusations against me were sufficiently
refuted. It had been thus directly denied. You ob-

11

serve that T did not rest, as I had a right to do, on a
bare denial of tlie charge, but had accompanied this
denial with an explanation of the facts. I had asserted
that my verbal contract ibr the purchase of the estate
(the Shawsheen House) had been, with my consent,
communicated to Mr. Lawrence and his associates, with
an offer to sell it to them on the same terms on which,
if they did not accept them, it would be conveyed to
me ; that they declined to buy it on those terms, and
that afterwards it was conveyed to me. This accounts
for the difference between the date of the deed and
the date of its acknowledgment. I asserted further,
that it was in consequence of this sale and conveyance
to me, and of course after they had taken place, that I
was emploj'ed at all in the purchase of any of these
lands on behalf of others.

At the date of this printed statement, and for some-
time afterwards, I continued to suppose that the accusa-
tion against me related to the Shawsheen House estate.
That it related to this estate is, I think, still the gen-
eral impression. Those who do not know how I have
been exonerated, and how little ground there ever was
for charging me with a breach of trust, still suppose
that my possession of this estate was wrongfully ob-
tained.

But I was afterwards given to understand my guilt
was incurred in the purchase of the Barnard farm.
Not many words are necessary to explain what took
place in reference to this subject. To those who are

12

not acquainted with all these premises, it may be as
well to state that this place is situate about half a mile
above Andover bridge, and forms part of the western
boundary of the land of the Essex Company. The
other estate is a square lot, and forms the south-eastern
corner made by the turnpike and the road leading
easterly by the Shawsheen House to North Andover,
and is surrounded by land belonging to the Essex
Company.

The late Benjamin Merrill, Esq., of Salem, held the
legal title of that one half of the farm which formerly
belonged to D. Barnard, deceased, and had given to
the late T. Barnard a bond for a deed of the same on
the payment of the sum of $1,050 and interest. Some
time in 1843, or early in 1844 Mr. T. Barnard assigned
this bond to me to secure the payment of money loaned
to him to enable him to build the dam and mill on the
premises. On February 7, 1845, Mr. Merrill was paid
$979.18 for a deed of the premises, and his bond dis-
charged. At some time, probably after the mone}^ had
been paid to Mr, Merrill and the deed taken from him,
Mr. Saunders desired to have a conditional deed, such
as were used in this business, of these premises made
to himself, Nesmith, and Lawrence in order to secure
the title to "the original purchasers." I reminded him
that he had been authorized to promise me that I
should be one of the original purchasers, so that it was
alread}^ in their control and might well remain as it
was : that I doubted not such would be the course of

13

Mr. Lawrence or Mr. Nesmith in such case, and I
tliouglit they would approve my keeping the control oi
this title as security for the performance of the promise
made to me on my engagement. Nothing was said by
Mr. Saunders about advancing the money paid to Mr.
Merrill or securing to me the payment of the debt of
Mr. Barnard. I thought that he assented to the pro-
priety of these suggestions. The subject of this title
was never again named to me by him, or by any other
person on behalf of the projectors or of the Essex Com-
pany. Nor was any thing further ever said to me
about being an original purchaser. Mr. T. Barnard
made a deed to the projectors of the other lialf of the
same farm, forming also a part of the western line of
the land of the Essex Company ; but they did not con-
vey it to this corporation, and it fell again into liis
hands, by the non-performance of the condition in his
deed. Upon the transfer of the lands bought by the
original purchasers, the Essex Comj^any paid to Law-
rence, Nesmith, Saunders, Stevens, and others, the sum
of ^30,000 as a bonus or profit. A strong presumption
arises that it was concluded to allow me to retain the
Barnard farm ; to exclude me from a share in those
profits, and then to force from me the other estate by
the means afterwards put in practice.

That there was for some reason a special policy at
some time devised, and afterwards pursued towards me
is rendered quite certain by the fact that our worthy
townsman, Mr. Moses Foster, then owned and still owns

14

a tract quite as desirable and necessary to the uses of
the Essex Company as any owned by me ; yet I never
heard their inability to buy it given as a reason for any
change in the location of Lawrence. Why, then, was
this odium sought to be thrown on one rather than on
another ?

I never attended any meeting of the original pur-
chasers, and, as you have already learned from the
statement made in 1845, "I was not introduced to
Lawrence and Nesmith, until after I had ceased to act
in their behalf" It has been asserted that I attended
before a committee of the Legislature to aid in obtain-
ing the charter of the Essex Company, and acted gen-
erally in behalf of this project. These statements are
wholly untrue. While I was in this business I never
had an interview with any of my employers except
Mr. Saunders, and was never requested to aid in any
thing but negotiations for land. I never was in
their councils, and knew no more of their plans than
was known to the public.

If any thing further is necessary to avoid all possible
cavil on the subject of the Barnard farm, it must be
enough to state, that on April 5, 1845, this estate was
offered for sale to Mr. Samuel Lawrence hy a person
who called on him for that purpose. Without any in-
cjuiry as to price or terms, Mr. Lawrence replied at
once, "We don't want a foot of the Barnard land."
No person on behalf of the Essex Company has ever
expressed a wish to buy this property.

15

Mark, now, Avliat was the condition of these affairs: I
had made a defence as to one estate, and had said
nothing as to the other. If it could be shown that any
guilt attached to me in the one omitted, how should I
have been overwhelmed with shame and the public
contempt by its exposure, added to the folly and base-
ness of having attempted to mislead the public by set^
ting up a defence where I knew there should be no
charge, and saj'ing nothing of the other in which I
knew the guilt was involved. Why did not the Essex
Company avail themselves of this ? Plainly because it
would not bear a charge, and because the attempt
would, as you see, expose the conduct of some asso-
ciated in it.

If I had been anywhere false to my trust, it was
inevitable that those I had betrayed could prove it.
But in the face of this public denial and defence, my
accusers were silent. Whoever they were, they kept
in the concealment they had always preserved. They
shrunk from presenting their case to the public scrutiny.
They chose for that time to let their accusation fail.
No man charged with an offence could go further to
establish his innocence. I had a right to say that my
vindication was complete ; that my accusers knew it ;
that their silence confessed it.

But I had not stopped with defence, I had become
an accuser. The published statement did substantially
charge the persons having the control of the affairs of
the Essex Company with being in a conspiracy to ex-

16

tort from me property for less tlian its value. It was
said that the assaults upon my character had their ori-
gin and stimulus in the pretences and declarations of
the Essex Com^Dany, that they sought my land for the
purposes of speculation, and that these slanders were
fabricated and circulated to lead to its attainment.
Is it not strange that honorable men should have
quietly submitted to stand before the community in
such a position? . Neither exacting justice of me, if I
had first betrayed, and then slandered them, or making
me restitution if it was under any error or mistake that
they had pursued such a line of conduct towards me.
All the allegations of fact contained in the statement
of 1845 were left to stand uncontradicted. Nobody on
behalf of the Essex Company has ever intimated to
me that there was any mistake or error, and the sequel
will show there probably was not any. The slanders
against me, the assertions about the location of the
city; the clamors of the three men of bluster, were
probably all matters of careful and deliberate calcula-
tion. Nothing but the fear of an exposure of some
such a state of things, and of the persons who partici-
pated in it, or a belief that they were above the influ-
ence of public opinion, could have constrained to silent
submission the men who stood conspicuous in the con-
duct of the affliirs of the Essex Company, under the
imputations of the statement published in August,
1845. They knew indeed how weak was any indi-
vidual against their combined power j they could wait

17

for time and opportunity : we shall see how they have
availed themselves of these.

Upon all this evidence I have a right to say that
Samuel Lawrence and some at least of his associates in
this business knew that I had done no wrong to the
Essex Company or its projectors; that I had committed
no treachery towards either of them ; that any action
of the Essex Company founded on any such pretence
would be founded upon a false pretence, and if any
error or delusion existed on this subject it was in his
power to remove it. Truth, justice, and all your, and
all the public interests to be hurt by placing the city on
the north bank of the river called upon him to remove
any wrong notion existing upon this subject.

No attempt to buy the land was made by the Essex
Company until slander and clamor had time to produce
their effect. The result produced by their operation
was simply a resolution not to sell the property to
them except on such fair offer, made by them, as would
show that nothing had been abated from the price by
terror or calumny. No such offer, or any thing like it,
was ever made. I affirm that the use of such means
to get the property was the reason why it was not sold
to them even on the terms offered.

Passing for the present over an interval of nine
years, I proceed to show by whom and how this charge
of treachery has been revived, the revenge or retalia-
tion then threatened, and now executed in the location
of the city, has been avowed, and how in other respects

18

the same spirit and temper, now it is to be feared, de-
generated into mere malice, have been exhibited and
indulged. It is to be hoped that this is a new principle
in the conduct of corporations. It cannot but be
deemed a dangerous one, and can never be necessary
to their protection or to their proper management. It
never could be the purpose of the Legislature to create
in corporations a race of beings, like the creations of
a strange fiction, invested with passions, but to whom
it can impart neither moral consciousness nor moral
responsibility, and turn them loose among the people,
with more than the power of giants, to destroy that
equality which is the great end of all our political
institutions. No power of the law can with certainty
protect the individual property or character, or indeed
any private rights against mischiefs which may be
inflicted by the influence of such a corporation as the
Essex Company actuated by malevolence.

You are aware that Mr. Samuel Lawrence is the
leading petitioner for the project becoming somewhat
famous as " the air line road." On Friday, September
15, 1854, he made an argument before the county
commissioners on behalf of that petition. One of our
townsmen, who was present, informed me the next day,
that Mr. Lawrence in his remarks alluded to my con-
duct in the transactions of 1845. The same day I
addressed to him a note of which the following is a
copy: —

19

Andover, September IG, 1854.

S. Lawrence, Esq.,

Dear Sir, — I am informed that in your address to the
county commissioners at the North Parish yesterday, you
stated in substance, that but for an accident and the treacher-
ous conduct of an individual, Lawrence would have been
commenced on this side of the river, and that the upper part
of the land on this side would now be filled with population.

I know that these remarks were understood by some of the
audience to allude to some conduct of mine, and the same
persons believe that such was the general impression. This
understanding of what you said gives to it the effect of a
gi'oss slander upon me. If you did not intend such allusion,
you will, as a matter of justice, furnish me the means of cor-
recting the impression that has been made. If it was in-
tended, I take leave to request that at an interview between
us, or in some other way, yon will acquaint me with the
facts upon which you rely to justify such an imputation
upon me.

Allow me to add, that I shall not accept from you a refer-
ence to another person, as it can be shown that you have
that in your own knowledge which is conclusive upon this
matter. Yours, &c.,

N. W. Hazen.

On Tuesday, September 19, the servant of Mr. Law-
rence delivered at my liouse the following reply : —

AndoTcr, September 16, 1854.

Hon. N. W. Hazen, Andover,

Sir, — Your letter to me of to-day has been received and
attentively considered. You say that some remarks I made
yesterday at the North Parish, before the county commission-

20

ers " were understood by some of the audience to allude to
some conduct of yours, and the same persons believe that
such was the general impression."

You have lived here more than a quarter of a century, are
in high social and professional position, holding eminent
places in church and State, and well acquainted with every
member of that assembly but myself; it was composed of
prominent citizens of the county of Essex and of this ancient
town. When the detestable charge of treachery was made
against " an individual," and this audience at once thought
of you (from the account of your informers), I beg in the
most solemn manner to ask you how it happened ?

Not the slightest particle of the public sentiment of this
community has been created by me, and I appeal to you
again, why this damnable charge is placed at your door ?
If unfounded impressions in relation to your " conduct "
exist in this community where you are so well known, you
have far better means of correcting them than I can furnish.

Would it not be well for you to publish a detailed ac-
count of all your transactions for and with the projectors of
the improvements on the Merrimac near here from the time
you were first employed by them, including your legal con-
tests with their successors, to the present moment ?

With due regard,

Samuel Lawrence.

This was immediately answered by the following : —

Andover, Septemher 19, 1854.

S. Lawrence, Esq.,

Dear Sir, — Li reply to your letter dated the 16th and de-
livered to me by your servant to-day, (the 19th,) I have to
say that I am surprised by its contents.

21

You cannot but know the charge of treachery against me,
fabricated and put in circulation some years since by some
of "the projectors," if not by yourself, and that I then showed
its falsehood to the public in such a manner that no attempt,
that I have heard of, was made to sustain the accusation.
When, however, you reiterate the same charge against some-
body— not intimating any other person, those who hear you,
who know what had formerly taken place, and ivho also knew
yon^ may well think that you might intend the same indi-
vidual. It is proper in such case that he should ask you
whether or not he was intended, and if so, what are the facts
relied on to justify the imputation. I take leave, thcj*efore,
to repeat my inquiries, and hope that you will not again
show yourself afraid to answer them. I desire, that if you
did allude to me in the remarks referred to, you will acquaint
me with the facts that you rely on to justify the allusion.

I add that I can satisfy any gentleman, in reply to any
charges and specifications that can be brought against me,
that my whole conduct towards "the projectors" and towards
the Essex Company has been fair and honorable.
With esteem.

Your ob't servant,

N. W. Hazex.

No reply to this letter having been received, at its
date I addressed another letter to Mr. Lawrence, of
which, and his reply, the following are copies : —

Andover, October 16, 1854.

S. Lawrence, Esq.,

Sir, — I infer that you do not intend to reply to my note
of the 19th ult. I write you again because I think more is
due to me than a simple exoneration by the silence of my

22

accuser when called, not to prove, but merely to state the
facts on which he founded his charge.

As I intimated in my first letter, you have that in your
knowledge, unless you have forgotten it, and you are perhaps
indifferent whether or not you remember any thing correctly
upon the subject, which shows conclusively that from the
fabrication of the charge nine years since, when I refuted it,
to the present time when you have revived it, that it had no
foundation in fact. I conclude, therefore, that when you
reiterated it before the commissioner's last month, you knew
it was not true, and that you spoke as you did to do me
injury.

That I may not trouble you to write in order to an under-
standing between us, I will take your silence as an admission
of the justice of this judgment. In this case you will assent
to the propriety of my making those who composed your
audience on the occasion referred to, and perhaps others,
acquainted with this correspondence and its result. All I

seek, is security against further assaults.

N. W. Hazen.

Boston, October 19, 1854.

Hon. N. W. Hazen, Andover,

Sir, — Your letter of the 16th was duly received ; in it you
propose to take my silence as admission of certain conclu-
sions. I understand, I think, the design of such an invita-
tion to silence, and I write to say, that you have no right
to make such an inference, and to repel the conclusion or
judgment you propose to make. I have not the faintest idea
of what you mean by these words, " you have that in your
own knowledge," etc.

With due regard,

Samuel Lawrence.

23

Aiidover, October 19, lSu4

Samuel Lawrence, Esq.,

Sir, — I regret that I do not find in your letter dated thib
day any statement of facts which in my letters to you of the
16th and 19th ult. I so urgently requested, and of which I
ventured in my letter of the 16th inst. to intimate to you
some of the consequences of withholding. Allow me to
renew these requests. Please consider that something is due
to the audience before whom the charge was made. Did
you intend to make the gentlemen who composed it mediums
for giving fresh currency to a base and refuted slander? Had
they not a right to suppose that you had some facts to justify
you in what you said? But why should I make these
appeals? Is it possible that you, professing to be a Christian
gentleman, have brought "a damnable" and "detestable
charge" against a very humble person, and after that, first
with insolence, and then by silence, you refuse his requests
for the facts, thus denying him, as far as is in your power, all
means of defence ? And this too when he has meekly
assured you that in reply to any charges and specifications
against him, he can satisfy any gentleman that his whole
conduct in the matters in question has been fair and honor-
able. I have never before been able to trace this charge to
the lips of one of " the projectors," among whom it was cer-
tainly fabricated. I wish now to know your authority for it,
and to be informed of all the particulars connected with it.
Pray, give me the facts ; all the facts.

N. W. Hazen.

No confidence is violated in laying these letters be-
fore you. Some months since such a purpose was
intimated to Mr. Lawrence as a necessary measure of
protection and defence on my part : he has manifested

24

no objection or reluctance to their publication. Yet to
this day he has furnished me with no statement of
facts, or made any retraction, or sought or made any
explanation.

No act of my life has been more painful than the
exhibition of these letters. They present me expressly
waiving all claim to indemnity for the past, asking only
security for the future, for that reputation which far
more than the attainment of riches it has been the
object of my life to deserve ; a suppliant not for proof,
but for facts; not for justice, but for safety; and even
in that humble attitude, repelled with derision and con-
tumely by one sf)eaking in the name of, and sustained
by, the most powerful corjooration in the common-
wealth. What defences have I against such enmity ?
How can I expect to survive its endurance when with
unabated fierceness it has lasted ten years already ? I
seek no controversy with Mr. Lawrence. I do not con-
sider that there is any thing personal between us. He
appears only as the representative of the Essex Com-
pany. I propose to deal with him in no other charac-
ter. I am pained that the production of these letters
gives to this publication a direction that may in any
manner affect any personal relations. But where the
object which I seek is merely safety from future
assaults, and that is denied me, and the assaults con-
tinued, pursuing this object honorably, I am not to re-
gard the consequences which its pursuit may devolve
upon the authors of its necessity.

25

You have now before you the letters of Mr. Law-
rence ; I need not characterize the temper which they
exhibit. I am sure that very few of you, from any thing
that has ever passed in your own breasts, can con-
ceive of the intensity of hatred which they manifest.
He alhides even to my social position, at the same
moment when - he confesses he had made a charge
against me, which, if true, rendered me unworthy of
any place among respectable men. In his view my
guilt of a " damnable and detestable charge " lies so
publicly at my door, that no allusion can be made to it
but every one understands it : he intimates no doubt
of the truth and justice of the imputation. Indeed, he
had asserted them both. Yet this person so notori-
ously guilty and so notoriously charged you have ex-
alted to " eminent places in church and State." When
I request to be informed what are the facts on which
he grounded a charge that for nine years had abused
the credulity of some among you, he replies to me, as
if I had asked him for a certificate of good moral char-
acter to be produced to you. Was this intended as an
adroit evasion of the demand for the facts, or was it
intended to insult you for promoting a person who had
conducted so dishonorably ? Hereafter perhaps Mr.
Lawrence will inform you, who are the persons that you
should raise to " eminent places." If we have before
this time groped in the dark, now that this luminary
has come among us, we must beware lest we wander
in the light.

4

26

The letter of September 16 was no sudden ebulli-
tion; three days passed between the occasion of writing
it and its delivery. He says it " was attentively con-
sidered." He has himself exhibited a copy of it ; he
has called special attention to the sneer with which it
closes. He desired to leave some undefined impression
on the minds of some, who he knew would communi-
cate it to others, that I had done or omitted something
incapable of justification or defence. But there is no
such thing. In April, 1845, I was paid for my services
in buying land, without one word of objection to the
manner in which those services had been performed, or
any intimation that any further or future services were
expected of me. I was certainly free to be employed,
as I soon was, against this concern. If he means to
pretend that it had any claim on me when I engaged
against it, he is certainly guilty of a flilse pretence,
made not to rob me of any specific property, but to
strip me of all claim to public respect ; of all that
makes wealth valuable, and to cover me with the shame
that would give to poverty an additional sting.

It is not unworthy of notice, that a present director
of the Boston and Maine Railroad has committed to
memory this letter of Mr. Lawrence, and recites parts
of it when he can find a fitting audience. Perhaps he
has enlivened some dull discussion of my affairs before
his board by its recital. I have never heard that his
studious industry has added to his mental stores the
craven letter of October 19, 1854. I fear that mine

27

have wholly escaped his attention. Now that they are
in print, allow me to ask this director, Had I not a
right to these fiicts? But what sliall we say of the
honesty or the capacity of the man, who can select
from this correspondence that letter and try to use it
to my dishonor? What shall we say of him when with
this temper he assumes the trust of doing justice be-
tween the railroad company, and the person to whom
the taunts and insults of that infamous letter were
addressed ?

As to my suits against the Essex Company, you
have already learned that when I was threatened that
its power should be used to my injury, I attempted to
assert my right and power to restrain such an abuse.
I did commence an action w itli that view, which was
decided, with some hesitation, I think, in favor of my
adversaries. As I am invited to it, I will state that the
suit now pending between me and the same concern is
to recover from them damages for flowing the Barnard
mill and land. They admit these damages amount to
$4,000, and also that the only defence to their pay-
ment is that the claim is outlawed. This is an entirely
honorable defence against an unjust claim. But it is
made by no honest man against a claim wdiich he knows
is justly due. In the present case the same paper exe-
cuted by m^'self and the corporation, admits that the
claim is due, if it is not barred by the lapse of time.
It is acrreed this is the onlv defence. There is no de-
nial of the justice of the claim. I know enough of

28

your views on tliis subject to render any comment un-
necessary. Who now should suffer from the sneer of
Mr. Lawrence ? More than a year ago, he had my
pledge that so far as he will dare to make charges and
specificationsj so far the conduct, which he has arraigned
in general terms, shall be shown to be fair and honor-
able. Will Mr. Lawrence submit the conduct of the
Essex Company and its projectors towards me to the
same test? If he will, let him begin with a justifica-
tion of his letter dated September 16, 1854.

That be spoke the words, — whom and what they
meant are admitted : that a civil request, made witii-
out passion or threat, but accompanied even with a
friendly caution, that he knew all about the matter, was
made to him, for the fiicts; — that he replied with inso-
lent taunt, — with malicious insinuations, but without
a single fact; — once more, with no attempt at retort,
without the show of perhaps even proper resentment,
he was asked for the facts, and desired not again to
show himself afraid to answer ; but he was afraid and
was silent ; — all this, and more, appears from the
letters.

He says of me, that "I am well acquainted with
every member of the assembly" that he addressed "ex-
cept himself" He disclaims my acquaintance. I re-
member indeed but two brief interviews with him, both
wholly in reference to the Shawsheen House estate. I
was never in his society at any other time. I never
had any other business with him. There has been no

29

other intercourse between us. "Whence, then, his hos-
tility ? Where did he acquire it ? Where but in the
councils of the Essex Company ? Where but there did
he learn to gloat with satanic glee in view of " the
damnable charge " which the falsehood of himself and
of his associates in that concern had " placed at my
door." Mr. Lawrence would hardly wish you to l)e-
lieve that such a flame, kindled in his bosom nine years
ago, had continued to burn so fiercely, without fresh
incitements and some gratification. Kindled, too, not
by any collision between us personally, but only with
him as a projector and member of the Essex Company.
It was not him that I offended, but it was this corpora-
tion. His letter discloses its counsels, not his own ;
its acts and purposes, — not his own. It was not
treachery to him but to this corporation that was
retaliated in the location of the city. When he re-
fuses to give me the facts, on which this decision was
founded, he keeps the secrets of the corporation ; with
this it is that all my relations on this subject exist ; he
is only its impersonation. It was as its exponent that
he uttered before "an assembly composed of the promi-
nent citizens of the county of Essex and of this ancient
town," a charge of treachery against a person with
whom he had no acquaintance, with whom he had no
quarrel. It was in this character that he insulted the
virtue and intelligence of that audience by an accusa-
tion against one known to all of them, "in high social
and professional position among them," which in his

30

own personal knowledge he knew was not true. It
was the cause of the corporation, and not his own, that
he was serving, when he labored to revive a suspicion
which truth, and the lapse of nine years had not in
every quarter totally extinguished.

I have deferred this publication in the hope that it
might in some way be finally avoided. But recent
proofs of the present hostility of the persons conduct-
ing the affairs of the Essex Company force upon me
the conviction that upon their part it is an unappeasable
warfare. The duty of self-defence is imposed upon me.
T ought to delay my defence no longer. At the term
of the supreme judicial court held this month in this
county, the case involving the claim for damages
already mentioned was argued. Mr. C. G. Loring, a
lawyer who has been long in an extensive practice in
Boston, appeared for the first time as counsel for the
corporation. In the course of the discussion, it was
stated that some concessions had been made in a
former case between the parties for the purpose of pre-
senting a single point of law to the court. Mr. Loring
promptly repelled the statement as incredible. ''For,"
said he, " there probably never was a case where the
parties were less disposed to show any favor to each
other." In other words, he had seen in this case the
existence of an extremity of enmity which he had
never known exceeded. He certainly made no such
discoveries from me, for I have never spoken with him.
No doulit he represented truly the state of his own

31

clients' tempers and dispositions. I dare not contemn
the power of such a corporation actuated by such a
temper. Besides this, enough took phxce during this
argument to show that it is time that I rescued my rep-
utation out of such handhng, and placed it where truth
and public opinion will defend it. These servants and
dependants of the Essex Company make a boast of
their enmity. It is proclaimed in court. Mr. Storrow
listened with manifest delight to the base and ground-
less insinuations of counsel acting under his instructions.
Mr. Lawrence discloses it in his argument for the " air-
line road," and at the same time anounces how nine
years ago they took some revenge, — but not enough ;
they seek for more. They had a right to locate Law-
rence where they pleased, so far as I am concerned.
But when they boast that it was located where it is,
rather than in another place, from revenge, that it was
placed where it is to retaliate for treachery, they are
bound to the public, to you, and to me, to show that the
treachery was committed. Is it not strange that this
vast corporation, to whose fidelity and prudence mill-
ions have been intrusted, and whose conduct con-
stantly affects for good or for evil the people of a whole
city, should be under the control of men, who not only
are governed by such purposes, motives, and ends, but
who publicly and impudently avow them ?

It is probable that I discover but a small part of the
attempts made to injure me by persons having so much
power and so much desire to effect this purpos6. Some

32

things, however, come to my knowledge. For instance,
I was credibly informed during the pendency of the
petition of the Boston and Maine Eailroad before the
last legislature for leave to amend and refile their loca-
tion, that Mr. Storrow stated in Boston that the posses-
sion of the land tliat led to the controversy was unfairly
obtained. Had he forgotten the flxcts contained in the
statement made in 1845, or did he remember that
statement too well? Mr. Storrow certainly does not
mean to be detected in any gross impropriety. He
w^ould not have written the letter of Mr. Lawrence,
dated September 16, 1854. He does not belong to
either of those two classes of persons, who, the prov-
erb says, " always tell the truth." Without doubt this
true development of the actual state of feeling and the
declaration of Mr. Loring were both blunders. But it
is in the nature of things, and it is a great conservative
security against fraud or violence, that no conspiracy
can endure long, or extend wide, without reaching to
some occasion, or embracing some person whose weak-
ness, possibly whose honesty, will disclose its existence
and give warning of its danger.

In entering upon affairs connected with the Boston
and Maine Railroad, it is proper to premise, that those
only which relate to its complicity with the Essex
Company will be mentioned.

The location of the new route through Lawrence was
filed March 4, 1847. An indenture dated January 5,
1848, between these corporations, recorded in the

registry of deeds, sho\^s that this route was fixed upon
by an agreement between them, and that the Essex
Company, in consideration that it was adopted, re-
leased their claim for damages, amounting to man}'
thousand dollars. The track, thus agreed upon, passes
nearly through the centre of the Shawsheen House
estate ; and bounded as this land is, on two sides by
lands of the Essex Company, it was quite obvious that
these corj)orations might so exercise their powers as
greatly to depreciate the value of the proj)erty.

The same instrument further provides, that the loca-
tion of the road shall not be changed, or in any man-
ner altered. This secures both the permanence of the
easement, as it had been placed upon the land, and for-
bids the road to lessen its extent by abandoning any
portion of its five rods in wielth. The agreement in
reference to its location was of course made previous
to its filing in March, 1847. There are several stipula-
tions relative to crossings in the indenture, of perhaps
doubtful construction to those unacquainted with the
intentions and real meaning of the parties. It is suffi-
cient for this purpose to state that their general de-
sign seems to be to reserve to the Essex Company a
control over this subject. After the location had been
filed, the railroad corporation at the July term, 1847,
petitioned the county commissioners for leave to pass
at grade all, I think, of the existing crossings except
that at Lowell street and that near the depot on the
south side of the river. These were, of course, to be

5

34

passed by bridges raised above tlie track, as they have
since been made.

This petition was continued from term to term until
July, 1848 ; at this time the indenture above men-
tioned had been written out in full, and at this July
term Mr. Duncan, at present a director in the road, as
its attorney, moved for leave to amend the petition
" by striking out that part which asks to cross on a
level with said way ' the road leading from the Shaw-
sheen House in Lawrence to North Andover,' so as to
leave said corporation in respect to said way subject to
the provisions of the act of 1846, ch. 271."

The effect of this amendment, if allowed, would be
to compel the railroad to build an embankment to sup-
port a bridge, so as to permit the passage of cars under
it ; it was said the requisite height would be about
seventeen feet. In such case, an embankment would
be raised nearly the whole extent of my land, of which
it has already been stated, that this street forms the
northerly boundary. The whole range of lots situate
on it would be rendered quite unavailable for building
purposes, except at large expense. The same obstruc-
tion would materially impair the value of the whole
parcel by rendering it less accessible, — nearly closing
its avenues on one side. It would of course injure
equally the range of house lots on the opposite side of
the street, owned by the Essex Company. But the
loss of twenty acres of land could be well spared by
them out of their abundance, and might be deemed

35

well disposed of, if by their loss they were rid of as
much more otherwise held in competition with them.
Possibly they might not be unwilling to destroy the
land of a man whose character they had been for
years assailing on account of these very premises
However this may be, it is certain that Mr. Storrow
knew of this design of the railroad company, and
seems to have concurred in it.

Mr. Boj'nton had built a two-story house on a lot
leased to him on the east side of the railroad track.
In the spring his collar filled with water, and it was
desired to provide a drain which could be obtained by
running it across the street, and about one hundred
and fifty feet into land of the Essex Company. This
drain would cross the street, and enter the land at
about the highest point of the proposed embankment.
Verbal application was made to Mr. Storrow for leave
to do this, with the offer of any reasonable compensa-
tion, and security that the drain should be filled or
removed on request.

The following note was received in reply : —

Lawrence, May 31, 1848.

N. W. Hazen, Esq.,

Sir, — I have looked at the gi'ound near the intersection
of the Boston and Maine Raih-oad with the highway running
between Valpey's and the Shawsheen House, and should
prefer not to authorize any drain or incumbrance upon the
land of the Essex Company. As I understand that the rail-
road company will probably build a bridge over the highway

t6

at that place, your tenant would, I presume, prefer, in any
case, to raise his building.

Your obedient servant,

Chas. S. Storrow,

Treasurer of the Essex Company.

It thus appears that, while the railroad corporation
had at first, and before the execution of its indenture
with the Essex Company proposed to pass this street
at grade, without expense, they afterwards changed
their purpose ; that Mr. Storrow possessing some con-
trol in the matter of railroad crossings, knew this pur-
pose before they attempted its execution ; that it
would subject his own corporation to heavy damages,
for which it had no redress and no compensation,
unless these were to be found in the injury inflicted
upon the estate on the opposite side of the street. So
far as appears, he made no objection to the measure ;
yet it will be observed that although its effect would
be to raise an embankment from fifteen to seventeen
feet high in that very place, the treasurer of this great
corporation, by his official signature, refused leave for
a small drain to be placed, even under this incum-
brance, and extending scarcely beyond its shadow.
The railroad company might, without objection, raise
a mound seventeen feet high, but the treasurer says,
he " should prefer not to authorize any incumbrance
upon the land of the Essex Company." He certainly
made no objection before the commissioners. But the
proposed ''incumbrance" was resisted by the selectmen

37

of Lawrence as an unnecessary obstruction to the pub-
lic travel, and not required for its security. Mr. Dun-
can stated no reasons for the chana-e in the views of

o

his road, but insisted on their right to make it. The
court refused to grant the leave to amend, and the
street remains at grade. I know that it wai? not the
Essex Company that moved the selectmen of Law-
rence to any action in the matter.

The cost of the bridare and embankment at this

o

place, computed by an experienced person, has been
estimated at $6,524.20. Add to this the damage done
to land and buildings then erected on this street, and
the aggregate could not be less than $20,000. It is
not easy to discover any equivalent to be gained by
this expenditure. It certainly had its design.

It was entirely right for Mr. Storrow to refuse leave
for putting in the drain. He was resj)onsible to
nobody for his refusal. It was a proper exercise of his
rights of ownership. But he was bound not to attempt
to impose upon any one the belief, that it was owing to a
general objection to any incumbrance, when he knew
that an incumbrance ten thousand times as great was to
be put there without any such objection on his part.

It is quite safe to say, that as for as the public inter-
ests are concerned, or any just interests of either of
these corporations, no reasons can be given for a bridge
in this place, that are not equally applicable to any
other of the several crossings at grade on the same
plain. As the directors of the railroad looked over its

38

surface, they saw no difference, and classed tlicm all
alike in their petition. Yet, for some purpose, under
some influence, they afterwards made a distinction
where there was and is no difference ; and this dis-
tinction was known to Mr. Storrow before they at-
temjDted to act upon it.

And what do we now see ? In 1847, it was against
my interest to have the railroad put across my land.
It subjected this property ruinously to the control of
these two corporations. This incumbrance was then
put upon it by the purchase of the Essex Company,
and for the same consideration it was asrreed that it
should never be removed or altered. But in 1855, its
removal may prejudice me, — then another route is
afforded by this very company, — this agreement is
waived, and the track is to be removed ; not, indeed,
according to law, but against law ; not in pursuance of
law, but in violation of law; to enable the railroad
company to shelter themselves from the immediate
consequences of their illegal conduct, by the perpetra-
tion of fresh illegalities. All this is done to enable the
railroad to violate the obligations of its charter. It is
an example of contempt of law and legislation which
if imitated by the individuals who compose society, it
could not exist in an organized state. This, too, upon
no pretence of public necessity, but to prolong a war-
fare already carried on by them in the manner here
related, for ten years.

I have thus laid before you a brief statement of my

39

share in these transactions, and in part of my present
relations to these corporations. I have acted always
upon the defensive. I have resisted aggression. I am
aware of no wrong or injustice done or attempted by
me to either of these corporations, or to the projectors
of either of them. Step by step I have been drawn
into this, to me, most unhappy conflict. I have seen
no way in which I could honorably fly from it. I have
done all that I could do in its avoidance. "While I
have kept myself unconscious of w^rong, I have con-
stantly sought peace by all honorable and proper means;
more could not reasonably be demanded of me.

When you consider that this is my defence and ex-
planation, you will excuse its inevitable egotism. The
exhibition of my name and affairs in print and in the
newspapers is very painful. I have done no injustice
to you, or to any among you, to my knowdedge. Dur-
ing my life with you, I have scarcely sought my own.
There is no man whose condition has been made worse
that mine might be made better. I now seek only
what is just and honest, and will endeavor to submit
to no injustice, while I am assured of the protection of
law. I will strive that my case shall not be the first
in which it shall be signally proved, that private rights
are not equal to corporate, and that such has become
the strength of these associations, that there is one rule
for them, and another for the people.

Your fellow townsman, and obedient servant,

N. W. IIAZEN.
Andover, Nbcemhcr 27, 1855.

JM